Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with? - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Until you play with it, making a judgment is a bit premature is it not?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yep.


Most of then buttons you can ignore, however they have fly overs telling
you what they do.

The buttons you do use are there becuse it makes the program very easy
to use.

R - Runs the simulation
AC - turns on/off an ac run
TR - turns on/off a transient run

etc...

In what way could that be simpler?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You can ignore the model window. It simple shows what model is attached
to the symbol when you click it. This is useful if you want to edit it.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yep. He loads in the examples and presses the run button. Everything
will be displayed automatically.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I would, because the writer of the software is an analogue designer with
a general interest in passing on knowledge. I dont know of any other
outfits that would guide biginers through aspects not actually directly
related to the software itself, for free.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I disagree. You should have a look at say, visual spice.

SS is set up such that most of what you see can be ignored, however, if
you need to see some finer details, you can. For example, the "N" button
simply pops up the netlist. The "G" button pops up a graphic window.
Graphic windows are opened and closed automatically depending on what
data is available (AC TRAN Noise etc), however, on some rare occasions
one might want to manually open a new one. For example, loading in
existing simulation data set manually.


Of course there is a learning curve with any tool. The learning time for
SS is way less than the real world.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Virtual instruments are a bad idea. For example, in EWB you have to keep
breaking and moving wires all the time to look at different voltages and
currents. This is truly a nightmare. In SS you simply move test point
(or click on wires/pins) and the waveforms will change immediately.

Oscilloscopes are way more complicated to use than a simple virtual
graphic display.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

SS hides all the spice technicalities in the GUI. You must be using
LTSpice:-)


Kevin Aylward
snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.



Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
Quoted text here. Click to load it
screen
not?

Nope. The screen shot is all I need to see.
Compare your screen shot with the purpose designed beginner tutorial
software here:
http://www.emona.com.au/catalogue/Section_23/2.html
(The link I posted earier was 1 level above this, so didn't show what I
intended)

There is no comparison, yours is complicated, unfriendly, non-inviting,
and overly technical (as most real simulators are). They are that way
because they have to be, they are NOT designed for raw beginners!

Quoted text here. Click to load it
PO
the
telling

They would scare the crap out of any beginner!
Remember, these are people who have barely mastered ohms law.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
easy

What beginner knows what "transient" is??

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If it was truly designed for beginners it would have NOTHING except the
components and some instruments (or waveform windows etc). Pictures of
the actual components would be nice too. Nothing about Spice commands,
nothing about different analysis modes, in fact you shouldn't even have
a "simulate" button, you just connect the components and probe the
circuit, simulating what they will eventusally HAVE to do in the real
world.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
attached
it.

A beginner would have NO IDEA!!

Quoted text here. Click to load it
by

Yes, there are more complicated packages than your for sure.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
if
button

occasions

Beginners don't know what Noise, transients, or netlists are. Having
these thing s on screen would only confuse them.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
for

Easier than a battery a resistor and a LED?, I don't think so.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
keep
and


Yes it's a nighmare, but it's how it's done in the real world.
Beginners need to learn that.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Once again, oscilloscopes are used in the real world, beginners need to
learn them.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I use CircuitMaker 2000


I'm sorry(?) to tell you, but your software is a real circuit simulator
with the associated complexity (even if it is "easy to use"). It is not
for beginners who are just getting over ohms law.

Regards
Dave :)


Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
>>> I have not played with your software, but after looking at the
>>> screen shot here http://www.anasoft.co.uk/screenshot.html I've got
>>> to say that surely you must be kidding!
>>
>> Until you play with it, making a judgment is a bit premature is it
>> not?
>
> Nope. The screen shot is all I need to see.

Ahmmm...with all due respect, this assumes that you opinion means
something on this particular matter.


> Compare your screen shot with the purpose designed beginner tutorial
> software here:
> http://www.emona.com.au/catalogue/Section_23/2.html
> (The link I posted earier was 1 level above this, so didn't show what
> I intended)

I have seen and played with this crap. Its useless...in my opinion..

>
> There is no comparison, yours is complicated, unfriendly,
> non-inviting, and overly technical (as most real simulators are).

Not at all. Until you actually run the examples, and then attempt to
construct a new circuit your view is meaningless.

> They are that way because they have to be,

Nope.

> they are NOT designed for
> raw beginners!

Correct, but SS is piss easy to use. I use it all time. It was
specifically designed to be piss easy to use. Just as despite being an
analogue engineer, I only like to have one volume control on my guitar.
Anything else is way too technical.

>
>>> Look at all those buttons "Sc N I M Ot G Lg D FF P Tx Rr aa ss so
> PO
>>> DD R G N II ac itf tr fft ff", and what is all that spice stuff in
>>> the
>>
>> Most of then buttons you can ignore, however they have fly overs
>> telling you what they do.
>
> They would scare the crap out of any beginner!

Nonsense. So long as he know Windows, it a non issue. That's what
Windows does as standard.

> Remember, these are people who have barely mastered ohms law.

>
>> The buttons you do use are there becuse it makes the program very
> easy
>> to use.
>>
>> R - Runs the simulation
>> AC - turns on/off an ac run
>> TR - turns on/off a transient run
>
> What beginner knows what "transient" is??

There are examples and "transient" is described in the help.

Look, everyone has to start somewhere. It takes far longer to understand
an oscilloscope, even if a beginner can afford one, then it does to
understand the equivalent in the virtual world. Once they understand the
virtual version, moving on to the real world should be a dawdle.

>
>> In what way could that be simpler?
>
> If it was truly designed for beginners it would have NOTHING except
> the components and some instruments (or waveform windows etc).

I disagree. Instruments are harder to deal with.

> Pictures of the actual components would be nice too. Nothing about
> Spice commands, nothing about different analysis modes, in fact you
> shouldn't even have a "simulate" button, you just connect the
> components and probe the circuit, simulating what they will
> eventusally HAVE to do in the real world.

I think you are confusing "beginner" with "child".

>
>>> Model window?
>>> Geeze, my mind boggles just looking at it all, and I know what it's
>>> all about!
>>
>> You can ignore the model window. It simple shows what model is
>> attached to the symbol when you click it. This is useful if you want
>> to edit it.
>
> A beginner would have NO IDEA!!

So, they can simple ignore it.

>
>>> No doubt
>>> though you'll go tell me to try it... so I'll pre-empt that (:-P)
> by
>>> saying the screen is way too "busy" and technical for a beginner.
>>
>> I disagree. You should have a look at say, visual spice.
>
> Yes, there are more complicated packages than your for sure.
>
>> SS is set up such that most of what you see can be ignored, however,
>> if you need to see some finer details, you can. For example, the "N"
>> button simply pops up the netlist. The "G" button pops up a graphic
>> window. Graphic windows are opened and closed automatically
>> depending on what
>
>> data is available (AC TRAN Noise etc), however, on some rare
> occasions
>> one might want to manually open a new one. For example, loading in
>> existing simulation data set manually.
>
> Beginners don't know what Noise, transients, or netlists are. Having
> these thing s on screen would only confuse them.

netlists arnt there unless requested.

The time to know what transient and Ac sweeps mean is right at the
beginning.

>
>> Of course there is a learning curve with any tool. The learning time
>> for SS is way less than the real world.
>
> Easier than a battery a resistor and a LED?, I don't think so.

Again, confusing between "child" and "beginner". So after the 5 minute
this is a battery a resistor and a LED, I now understand this, whats
next?

Look, as I said, sure there is a learning curve for anything, real or
virtual, but about 1 hour tops should have one up and running with the
basics in the virtual world.

>
>>> A few people have bagged Electronics Workbench, but at least it is
>>> designed for the beginner types with it's virtual instruments,
>>
>> Virtual instruments are a bad idea. For example, in EWB you have to
>> keep breaking and moving wires all the time to look at different
>> voltages and currents. This is truly a nightmare. In SS you simply
>> move test point
>
>> (or click on wires/pins) and the waveforms will change immediately.
>
> Yes it's a nighmare, but it's how it's done in the real world.
> Beginners need to learn that.

Yes, eventually, but once one has had practise doing it the easy way,
one can get a feel for doing it a more difficult way.

Its a walk before one can run sort of thing.

>
>> Oscilloscopes are way more complicated to use than a simple virtual
>> graphic display.
>
> Once again, oscilloscopes are used in the real world, beginners need
> to learn them.

At some point, but why not make the initial hurdle, lower.

>
>> SS hides all the spice technicalities in the GUI. You must be using
>> LTSpice:-)
>
> I use CircuitMaker 2000

Just as sad:-)

>
>
> I'm sorry(?) to tell you, but your software is a real circuit
> simulator with the associated complexity (even if it is "easy to
> use"). It is not for beginners who are just getting over ohms law.

I disagree. Its a very usefull complement to the real world.

I have thought about this quite a lot. I know where I came from, and
continuing with those outdated ideas is not the way to go, today, in my
opinion. You seem to be restricting "beginner" to only the first week of
learning. I can't see your arguments really applying to anything but
this initial introduction. Once the little lesson of what is what in
spice is done, its a great tool for "beginners".

Kevin Aylward
snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.




Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?

>
>
>> Until you play with it, making a judgment is a bit premature
>>is it not?
>
>Nope. The screen shot is all I need to see.
>
>Compare your screen shot with the purpose designed beginner tutorial
>software here:
>http://www.emona.com.au/catalogue/Section_23/2.html
>
>There is no comparison, yours is complicated, unfriendly, non-inviting,
>and overly technical (as most real simulators are). They are that way
>because they have to be, they are NOT designed for raw beginners!

While I agree that no simulators is suitable for raw beginners and
that they must be technical, I cannot agree that they have to be
unfriendly, non-inviting, and overly technical.  The problem is
that software developers are virtually always poor human-interface
developers.  They live in a world where you must conform yourself
to the very rigid requirements of a computer language - where one
comma where a period should go stops the program from working - and
they tend to write programs that force that paradigm on the user.

In addition, they know too much about the internal workings of the
program, and expose some details to the user in inappropriate ways,
while hiding other details that the user could really use.  Yes,
there are other SPICE programs that are worse, but that's like
saying that, out of the three stooges, Larry is the intellectual
stooge.  The bar for SPICE programs is very, very low.

In addition to the generic human-interface problems that plague
most software, SuperSpice has an additional albatross around its
neck; the author.  Kevin Aylward is well-known for treating anyone
who disagrees with him like dirt.  He engages in personal attacks
rather than reasoned discourse.  If he treats other newsgroup
participants that way, imagine how he treats a paying customer who
dares to question his decision to map most functions to top-level
on-screen buttons with single letters instead of descriptive names!
The good news is that my killfile filters out all of his abuse,
including the personal attack that will, no doubt, be launched in
response to this criticism.




Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com wrote in message
> >
> >
ssssssnip
> In addition to the generic human-interface problems that plague
> most software, SuperSpice has an additional albatross around its
> neck; the author.  Kevin Aylward is well-known for treating anyone
> who disagrees with him like dirt.  He engages in personal attacks
> rather than reasoned discourse.  If he treats other newsgroup
> participants that way, imagine how he treats a paying customer who
> dares to question his decision to map most functions to top-level
> on-screen buttons with single letters instead of descriptive names!
> The good news is that my killfile filters out all of his abuse,
> including the personal attack that will, no doubt, be launched in
> response to this criticism.


Here's my two cents, I'm sure I'll get change.

1. Simulators are invaluable when and only when :
A. They're worth their salt.
B. They're properly used. This means in conjuction with actual lab
work to verify the simulation and see how real world results differ
from simulation land. This is how electronics are now taught in school
these days, in case anyone didn't know.

Now if you have a crap simulator like ooooh... MultiSim, who seems to
subscribe to the Windows theory of point, click, and keep stupid..ex:
the virtual scopes are real cute and everything but the first time you
get an iteration limit error you're left scratching your head and you
wind up spending far more time futally learning how to use a buggy,
overpriced little program than learning electronics.

I think it irresponsible to the extreme for anyone to recommend to a
person who's aspirations are to become a hobbiest, to run out and
purchase >$20K worth of equipment, when they won't even have a clue
what they're buying, or how to use it.

If words like transiant or iteration are too complex, give up now.

Start with a simulator, gain a bit of confidence with tutorials, help
files, small personal projects, then, go buy some parts, start small
and work up.

I'd also like to say it's high time posts here stopped being polluted
with off topic personal attacks against other members who are here to
contribute and help others. You asked for it, and got put in your
place, time ya got over it. Kevin has a private email address, use
that to tell him you love him, nobody else gives a shit what your
personal feelings are, and it won't gain you any respect here.


Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?

> Here's my two cents, I'm sure I'll get change.
>
> 1. Simulators are invaluable when and only when :
> A. They're worth their salt.
> B. They're properly used. This means in conjuction with actual lab
> work to verify the simulation and see how real world results differ
> from simulation land. This is how electronics are now taught in school
> these days, in case anyone didn't know.
>

My 2p worth (nearer 4c that 2 these days!) is:

If you need to know how a simulator works internally to know whether you
can trust the results, you are better off using a breadboard. And unless
you have the time and inclination to work out the intimate deatils, take
all results with a pinch of snuff.

For example, I've had a circuit where changing a resistor from 10k to
9.99k results in a radical change of behaviour. I KNOW the real circuit
doesn't do that, I've done something wrong in terms of not understanding
how the equations are solved, but I really don't want to know. Out with
the matrix board, 10 minutes later I know which side of the line the
error was on.

The GUI's but the guinea's stamp, the spice engine's the gowd for a' that.

Paul Burke


Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
>
>> Here's my two cents, I'm sure I'll get change.
>>
>> 1. Simulators are invaluable when and only when :
>> A. They're worth their salt.
>> B. They're properly used. This means in conjuction with actual lab
>> work to verify the simulation and see how real world results differ
>> from simulation land. This is how electronics are now taught in
>> school these days, in case anyone didn't know.
>>
>
> My 2p worth (nearer 4c that 2 these days!) is:
>
> If you need to know how a simulator works internally to know whether
> you can trust the results, you are better off using a breadboard. And
> unless you have the time and inclination to work out the intimate
> deatils, take all results with a pinch of snuff.

As you should with the breadboard. Many times, the breadboard can work,
but not for the reason you think it works. A one off breadboard means
absolute nothing in an engineering sense.

>
> For example, I've had a circuit where changing a resistor from 10k to
> 9.99k results in a radical change of behaviour. I KNOW the real
> circuit doesn't do that,

But you don't know. Some circuits are truly that sensitive.

>I've done something wrong in terms of not
> understanding how the equations are solved, but I really don't want
> to know. Out with the matrix board, 10 minutes later I know which
> side of the line the error was on.

Sure, *sometimes* spice can have some numerical issues, but by far the
most part, it solves correctly.

One cant just cheery pick were a bread board is better, and use that as
an argument to justify the value of a bread board in general. The
reality is that spice will catch 1000s of time more errors then you can
on a breadboard. The fact that it doesn't catch all of them is besides
the point. It catches *MORE* of them, and ones that can be much more
difficult to track down.

Kevin Aylward
snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.




Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
> >
> >> Here's my two cents, I'm sure I'll get change.
> >>
> >> 1. Simulators are invaluable when and only when :
> >> A. They're worth their salt.
> >> B. They're properly used. This means in conjuction with actual lab
> >> work to verify the simulation and see how real world results differ
> >> from simulation land. This is how electronics are now taught in
> >> school these days, in case anyone didn't know.
> >>
> >
> > My 2p worth (nearer 4c that 2 these days!) is:
> >
> > If you need to know how a simulator works internally to know whether
> > you can trust the results, you are better off using a breadboard. And
> > unless you have the time and inclination to work out the intimate
> > deatils, take all results with a pinch of snuff.
>
> As you should with the breadboard. Many times, the breadboard can work,
> but not for the reason you think it works. A one off breadboard means
> absolute nothing in an engineering sense.
>
> >
> > For example, I've had a circuit where changing a resistor from 10k to
> > 9.99k results in a radical change of behaviour. I KNOW the real
> > circuit doesn't do that,
>
> But you don't know. Some circuits are truly that sensitive.
>
> >I've done something wrong in terms of not
> > understanding how the equations are solved, but I really don't want
> > to know. Out with the matrix board, 10 minutes later I know which
> > side of the line the error was on.
>
> Sure, *sometimes* spice can have some numerical issues, but by far the
> most part, it solves correctly.
>
> One cant just cheery pick were a bread board is better, and use that as
> an argument to justify the value of a bread board in general. The
> reality is that spice will catch 1000s of time more errors then you can
> on a breadboard. The fact that it doesn't catch all of them is besides
> the point. It catches *MORE* of them, and ones that can be much more
> difficult to track down.
>
> Kevin Aylward
> snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

It's also cheaper to catch them in spice, if you can (less smoke).
Furthermore spice let's you quickly and easily view all kinds of
things that you can't easily view with a scope.

Spice falls on its face in AC analysis for high speed switching
circuits, which you can get around with using average model simulation
if you know how (and I don't... yet), but then again, breadboards are
no good at all for this kind of application either, just as an example
for what's already been stated.

After fighting with Electronics Workbench and MultiSim, actually
having been taught it was the, get this, "industry standard"..

I went to pspice (orcad) and never looked back, it's got some bugs for
sure, but  it's been good to me. Try a few simulators and see what
works best for you, some are better at certain things than others,
even if it is just for a nicer GUI at first. One that comes with good
help files and tutorials is a real winner for a beginner.

Proteus simulator is excellent for simulating micro-controllers, code
and all, but the interface just sucks, and you have to purchase the
micro-controller models seperatly. It's not cheap.

I recommend staying far away from MultiSim, the only thing that sucks
worse than their program is their level of support. Try any of the
others.

I like pspice as it is more the industry standard and most
manufacturers, if they offer models at all, will offer a version of it
for pspice.

While I haven't tried it yet myself, there's a newer one out making
waves, I've heard alot of good about it, for both Windows and Linux.
See it here:
http://www.catena.uk.com /


Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
>>>
>>>> Here's my two cents, I'm sure I'll get change.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Simulators are invaluable when and only when :
>>>> A. They're worth their salt.
>>>> B. They're properly used. This means in conjuction with actual lab
>>>> work to verify the simulation and see how real world results differ
>>>> from simulation land. This is how electronics are now taught in
>>>> school these days, in case anyone didn't know.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My 2p worth (nearer 4c that 2 these days!) is:
>>>
>>> If you need to know how a simulator works internally to know whether
>>> you can trust the results, you are better off using a breadboard.
>>> And unless you have the time and inclination to work out the
>>> intimate deatils, take all results with a pinch of snuff.
>>
>> As you should with the breadboard. Many times, the breadboard can
>> work, but not for the reason you think it works. A one off
>> breadboard means absolute nothing in an engineering sense.
>>
>>>
>>> For example, I've had a circuit where changing a resistor from 10k
>>> to
>>> 9.99k results in a radical change of behaviour. I KNOW the real
>>> circuit doesn't do that,
>>
>> But you don't know. Some circuits are truly that sensitive.
>>
>>> I've done something wrong in terms of not
>>> understanding how the equations are solved, but I really don't want
>>> to know. Out with the matrix board, 10 minutes later I know which
>>> side of the line the error was on.
>>
>> Sure, *sometimes* spice can have some numerical issues, but by far
>> the most part, it solves correctly.
>>
>> One cant just cheery pick were a bread board is better, and use that
>> as an argument to justify the value of a bread board in general. The
>> reality is that spice will catch 1000s of time more errors then you
>> can on a breadboard. The fact that it doesn't catch all of them is
>> besides the point. It catches *MORE* of them, and ones that can be
>> much more difficult to track down.
>>
>> Kevin Aylward
>> snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
>> http://www.anasoft.co.uk
>> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
>> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
>> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
>
> It's also cheaper to catch them in spice, if you can (less smoke).
> Furthermore spice let's you quickly and easily view all kinds of
> things that you can't easily view with a scope.

For i.c. designs its $100k+ for each component tweek;-)

>
> Spice falls on its face in AC analysis for high speed switching
> circuits, which you can get around with using average model simulation
> if you know how (and I don't... yet), but then again, breadboards are
> no good at all for this kind of application either, just as an example
> for what's already been stated.

And one should still point out that, to all intents and purposes, us
i.c. designers don't use breadboards at all, ever. Even in debugging one
avoids die probing as its so awkward to do. A lot stuff at HF would
never work any way on a BB. It needs to be all on chip. Spice is that
good in i.c design the models are usually extremely good. Things often
work right of the bat, essentially identical to simulation.

>
> After fighting with Electronics Workbench and MultiSim, actually
> having been taught it was the, get this, "industry standard"..
>
> I went to pspice (orcad) and never looked back, it's got some bugs for
> sure, but  it's been good to me.

But its extortionately expensive.

>Try a few simulators and see what
> works best for you, some are better at certain things than others,
> even if it is just for a nicer GUI at first.

So why not try SuperSpice:-)

As I often point out, if you are creative you can use the demo for quite
large circuits all for free. This is because you can have one level of
schematic hierarchy. So placing schematic attached blocks allow you 30
blocks * 25 components per block = 750 real components. You even get
around this limit by using the automatic .subckt from schematic
facility.


>One that comes with good
> help files and tutorials is a real winner for a beginner.
>
> Proteus simulator is excellent for simulating micro-controllers, code
> and all, but the interface just sucks, and you have to purchase the
> micro-controller models seperatly. It's not cheap.
>
> I recommend staying far away from MultiSim, the only thing that sucks
> worse than their program is their level of support. Try any of the
> others.
>
> I like pspice as it is more the industry standard and most
> manufacturers, if they offer models at all, will offer a version of it
> for spice.

But most PSpice models will run in other simulators. If they don't, its
usually just a minor modification.

As I have mentioned a few times, I wrote SS as I could not afford a
personal copy of PSpice. In my view, PSpice has had its day as being a
cost effective Spice. If you specifically want speed and convergence
than the de facto choice is LTSpice, if you want ease of use, its
SuperSpice:-)

Kevin Aylward
snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.




Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
>>
>>
>>> Until you play with it, making a judgment is a bit premature
>>> is it not?
>>
>> Nope. The screen shot is all I need to see.
>>
>> Compare your screen shot with the purpose designed beginner tutorial
>> software here:
>> http://www.emona.com.au/catalogue/Section_23/2.html
>>
>> There is no comparison, yours is complicated, unfriendly,
>> non-inviting, and overly technical (as most real simulators are).
>> They are that way because they have to be, they are NOT designed for
>> raw beginners!
>
> While I agree that no simulators is suitable for raw beginners and
> that they must be technical, I cannot agree that they have to be
> unfriendly, non-inviting, and overly technical.  The problem is
> that software developers are virtually always poor human-interface
> developers.  They live in a world where you must conform yourself
> to the very rigid requirements of a computer language - where one
> comma where a period should go stops the program from working - and
> they tend to write programs that force that paradigm on the user.
>
> In addition, they know too much about the internal workings of the
> program, and expose some details to the user in inappropriate ways,
> while hiding other details that the user could really use.  Yes,
> there are other SPICE programs that are worse, but that's like
> saying that, out of the three stooges, Larry is the intellectual
> stooge.  The bar for SPICE programs is very, very low.

For once, I agree with your comments, apart from any directed against
SS. The above is essentially true. Of course none of this applies to
SuperSpice as it was written by someone with 20 years analogue design
experience and 10,000's of hours using such tools.

>
> In addition to the generic human-interface problems that plague
> most software, SuperSpice has an additional albatross around its
> neck; the author.  Kevin Aylward is well-known for treating anyone
> who disagrees with him like dirt.

Not at all. As usuall, your personality problems are sure showing
through.

>  He engages in personal attacks
> rather than reasoned discourse.

Give it up mate. You've already lost that argument.

Kevin Aylward
snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.




Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
I am also a beginner and found CircuitMaker, it's student version is free
and so far been working Ok with the experiments that I do, BTW I do them in
the computer and then build them on the bread board and perform
measurements.

Was wondering why no one recommended CircuitMaker?


> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in learning about circuitry as a hobby and to eventually
> create a few small projects that I had in mind, such as guitar pedals
> and a few audio devices, but obviously I have to start small.
>
> I'm somewhat competent with programming/mathematics, have some text
> books, and I do know a -little- analogue+digital circuit theory, but
> I've never had a real hands-on attempt by myself before so I'll be
> pretty much attacking this as though I know nothing.
>
> Can anyone recommend some software (free or cheap) that would be good
> for a beginner to use to learn about circuit behaviour and design some
> circuits with?  Are there programs out there that actually allow you to
> drop in popular microcontrollers and model their behaviour as well?
>
> Thanks,
> Matt.




Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?

>I am also a beginner and found CircuitMaker, it's student version is free
>and so far been working Ok with the experiments that I do, BTW I do them in
>the computer and then build them on the bread board and perform
>measurements.
>
>Was wondering why no one recommended CircuitMaker?

Patience! In the 5 hours since Matt's post, of the 8 replies so far:
2 recommended against using a simulation package at all
1 recommended LTSpice
1 recommended Proteus VSM,
1 software author recommended (surprise) his own package, and
2 (including me) recommended researching the many programs available.

You were the 8th, recommending CM. I'd echo that, as it's what I use
myself (although I have CM 2000 Pro, with several thousand models
built-in, not the free version).

I'd also reinforce the value of experimental breadboarding and the use
of a 'scope - but nevertheless I sure wish I'd had a simulator when I
started out in the hobby.

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK



Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?

>Can anyone recommend some software (free or cheap) that would be good
>for a beginner to use to learn about circuit behaviour and design some
>circuits with?

See my notes and links to some 60 ECAD programs at
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/ECADList.html
several of which include simulation facilities.

Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK



Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
Thanks for the advice everyone, it's all been helpful and hopefully I
will be creating something interesting soon enough.

Matt.


Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:09:58 +0800, msv-groups

>Thanks for the advice everyone, it's all been helpful and hopefully I
>will be creating something interesting soon enough.

And next time you'll know better than to ask a question to which
*everybody* has a passionate opinion to share...   ;-)

--
Rich Webb   Norfolk, VA


Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
> Hi,
>
> I'm interested in learning about circuitry as a hobby and to eventually
> create a few small projects that I had in mind, such as guitar pedals
> and a few audio devices, but obviously I have to start small.
>
> I'm somewhat competent with programming/mathematics, have some text
> books, and I do know a -little- analogue+digital circuit theory, but
> I've never had a real hands-on attempt by myself before so I'll be
> pretty much attacking this as though I know nothing.
>
> Can anyone recommend some software (free or cheap) that would be good
> for a beginner to use to learn about circuit behaviour and design some
> circuits with?  Are there programs out there that actually allow you to
> drop in popular microcontrollers and model their behaviour as well?
>
> Thanks,
> Matt.

Wait while I get up on this her soapbox.

Circuit design is the process of turning an idea into an implementation
concept into a bunch of hardware and/or software to realize the idea.

For this you don't need software.  You need a BOOK!!!
Go to the library and check out a book on analog circuit design.
Learn about Ohm's law, norton's theorems etc.  Learn about rc/lc/rlc
circuits. How to bias a transistor, FET etc.  Learn how to do Laplace
transforms.  You're rarely gonna do a laplace transform, but the
knowledge of how, gives you great insight into what's gonna happen
when you change a circuit paramaeter or topology.  It allows you to pick
component values right out of the air that are very close to what you'll
finally end up with after you fine tune it.  It tells you instantly when
you're way off base and need a different approach.
If you need a calculator, you're going too deep.  Your objective is to
be able to scratch out a circuit topology, estimate bandwidths, gain,
impedance, signal fidelity etc.  Learn about component parasitics.
Unless you're doing audio work, a resistor is not just a resistor.  And
it goes downhill from there.  Learn how real components have parasitics
and vary relative to their specifications and how to mitigate the impact
of those variations on your objective.

Learn about Fourier transformations betwee time and frequency domains.
Again, you're rarely gonna do one by hand, but knowing how gives you
great insight into topologies and components required to realize your
design.

Now, go back to the library and checkout a book on digital circuit
design.  Learn that ALL curcuits are analog and that most digital
problems have to do with the ignored analog characteristics of the
digital simplification.  Learn about Karnaugh maps, glitches, races etc.

Now, you know how to design circuits.  It's time to start looking at
software to simulate the circuit you've already designed to fine tune
it's parameters and take into consideration the simplifications you used
to design it in your head or with a pencil.

Circuit simulation replaces the tedious VERIFICATION calculations that
we used to do by hand.
It does NOT replace the thought processes needed to design circuits.

You have only to read the archives of this newsgroup to see countless
examples where people stuffed random numbers into a simulator and came
up with something that simulated, but was impractical, unrepeatable,
or just plain sad.

Or you could just try to hire an engineer and learn the same sad fact.
Don't think I've ever asked an engineering candidate how to simulate a
circuit.  But I ask 'em all to tell me what an RC time constant is...
and most don't know.

Help me down from this here soapbox...please.
mike

--
Return address is VALID.
500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 $2200
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm interested in learning about circuitry as a hobby and to
>> eventually create a few small projects that I had in mind, such as
>> guitar pedals and a few audio devices, but obviously I have to start
>> small. I'm somewhat competent with programming/mathematics, have some
>> text
>> books, and I do know a -little- analogue+digital circuit theory, but
>> I've never had a real hands-on attempt by myself before so I'll be
>> pretty much attacking this as though I know nothing.
>>
>> Can anyone recommend some software (free or cheap) that would be good
>> for a beginner to use to learn about circuit behaviour and design
>> some circuits with?  Are there programs out there that actually
>> allow you to drop in popular microcontrollers and model their
>> behaviour as well? Thanks,
>> Matt.
>
> Wait while I get up on this her soapbox.
>
> Circuit design is the process of turning an idea into an
> implementation concept into a bunch of hardware and/or software to
> realize the idea.
> For this you don't need software.  You need a BOOK!!!
> Go to the library and check out a book on analog circuit design.
> Learn about Ohm's law, norton's theorems etc.  Learn about rc/lc/rlc
> circuits. How to bias a transistor, FET etc.  Learn how to do Laplace
> transforms.  You're rarely gonna do a laplace transform, but the
> knowledge of how, gives you great insight into what's gonna happen
> when you change a circuit paramaeter or topology.  It allows you to
> pick component values right out of the air that are very close to
> what you'll finally end up with after you fine tune it.  It tells you
> instantly when you're way off base and need a different approach.
> If you need a calculator, you're going too deep.  Your objective is to
> be able to scratch out a circuit topology, estimate bandwidths, gain,
> impedance, signal fidelity etc.  Learn about component parasitics.
> Unless you're doing audio work, a resistor is not just a resistor. And
> it goes downhill from there.  Learn how real components have
> parasitics and vary relative to their specifications and how to
> mitigate the impact of those variations on your objective.

All good general advice.

>
> Learn about Fourier transformations betwee time and frequency domains.
> Again, you're rarely gonna do one by hand, but knowing how gives you
> great insight into topologies and components required to realize your
> design.

All good general advice.

>
> Now, go back to the library and checkout a book on digital circuit
> design.

Nope.....

Digital is for those just to stupid to do analogue:-)


>Learn that ALL curcuits are analog and that most digital
> problems have to do with the ignored analog characteristics of the
> digital simplification.  Learn about Karnaugh maps, glitches, races
> etc.
> Now, you know how to design circuits.  It's time to start looking at
> software to simulate the circuit you've already designed to fine tune
> it's parameters and take into consideration the simplifications you
> used to design it in your head or with a pencil.

I can't agree at all. This is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, and
that of probably every educator known to man. If this were true, there
would be no lab work until 3rd year of uni. The best way to learn is to
do little bits of theory at a time complemented by practise to reinforce
that theory. A simulator is indeed *real* practise, excluding the few %
issues like parasitics. Too many here are going, well because a
simulator doesn't copy everything exactly from the real world, then it
is sadly lacking for real world learning. This is very narrow minded.
*Most* of what a simulator can do is very good model of the real world.

Spending several years doing the "basics" before even getting started on
trying out the theory is quite daft. One would simply forget what one
first learned. To all intents and purposes, there is no practical
difference between examining ohms law and I=cdv/dt on the bench or in a
simulator. Your brain, eyes and ears are processing essentially, the
same information. There is only this vague psychological issue that some
have about it "not being the same". Essentially, it is.

>
> Circuit simulation replaces the tedious VERIFICATION calculations that
> we used to do by hand.

Unfortunately, in a real design of 100s to 1000s of components, hand
calculations are impossible. Even a one transistor circuit has no exact
analytical solution.

> It does NOT replace the thought processes needed to design circuits.

It can do. This is the reality of how it works in the real world, not
how we kid ourselves it is or should be. Yes, you need a good
understanding independent of simulations, however, it is simple
impossible to understand all of the nuances of a design without some
constructive trial and error on a simulator. Yes, most don't like this
idea, but it is the way it truly is. To illustrate. Consider the design
of a nuclear bomb. These require amazingly powerful computers. Sure,
they are run by *experts* , but even these 20 year experts cant
understand the implications of all of the equations. Thery are simply
too complicated. Or for example, colliding black holes. There is not a
chance to develop a *feel* for happens *without* simulations.

Sure, I agree that without bench work there are many issues that one
doesn't get a feel for in a simulator, but *likewise*, without a
simulator there are *many more* things that you never get a feel for by
bench work. As I said, I've been there 10000's of hours on both the
bench and simulator. I can count countless things that I have missed on
the bench that the simulator showed.

>
> You have only to read the archives of this newsgroup to see countless
> examples where people stuffed random numbers into a simulator and came
> up with something that simulated, but was impractical, unrepeatable,
> or just plain sad.

But this is unintelligent trial and error. Intelligent trail and error
is another matter entirely.  *All* design can be reduced to a Darwinian
process, i.g. replication of existing circuits, varying such designs,
and selecting the good ones. Whether this is done on paper, in ones head
(a Darwinian process) or on a simulator don't much matter.


Kevin Aylward
snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.




Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
>
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I'm interested in learning about circuitry as a hobby and to
>>>eventually create a few small projects that I had in mind, such as
>>>guitar pedals and a few audio devices, but obviously I have to start
>>>small. I'm somewhat competent with programming/mathematics, have some
>>>text
>>>books, and I do know a -little- analogue+digital circuit theory, but
>>>I've never had a real hands-on attempt by myself before so I'll be
>>>pretty much attacking this as though I know nothing.
>>>
>>>Can anyone recommend some software (free or cheap) that would be good
>>>for a beginner to use to learn about circuit behaviour and design
>>>some circuits with?  Are there programs out there that actually
>>>allow you to drop in popular microcontrollers and model their
>>>behaviour as well? Thanks,
>>>Matt.
>>
>>Wait while I get up on this her soapbox.
>>
>>Circuit design is the process of turning an idea into an
>>implementation concept into a bunch of hardware and/or software to
>>realize the idea.
>>For this you don't need software.  You need a BOOK!!!
>>Go to the library and check out a book on analog circuit design.
>>Learn about Ohm's law, norton's theorems etc.  Learn about rc/lc/rlc
>>circuits. How to bias a transistor, FET etc.  Learn how to do Laplace
>>transforms.  You're rarely gonna do a laplace transform, but the
>>knowledge of how, gives you great insight into what's gonna happen
>>when you change a circuit paramaeter or topology.  It allows you to
>>pick component values right out of the air that are very close to
>>what you'll finally end up with after you fine tune it.  It tells you
>>instantly when you're way off base and need a different approach.
>>If you need a calculator, you're going too deep.  Your objective is to
>>be able to scratch out a circuit topology, estimate bandwidths, gain,
>>impedance, signal fidelity etc.  Learn about component parasitics.
>>Unless you're doing audio work, a resistor is not just a resistor. And
>>it goes downhill from there.  Learn how real components have
>>parasitics and vary relative to their specifications and how to
>>mitigate the impact of those variations on your objective.
>
>
> All good general advice.
>
>
>>Learn about Fourier transformations betwee time and frequency domains.
>>Again, you're rarely gonna do one by hand, but knowing how gives you
>>great insight into topologies and components required to realize your
>>design.
>
>
> All good general advice.
>
>
>>Now, go back to the library and checkout a book on digital circuit
>>design.
>
>
> Nope.....
>
> Digital is for those just to stupid to do analogue:-)

Hmmmm.  Digital is a GROSS simplification of analog so you can
deal with the concepts more easily.  Isn't that how simulators work?
Ain't nothing wrong with working in the digital domain as long as you
go back and verify your work in the analog domain.  But if you're using
a simulator and don't understand digital or analog, you're in deep...

>
>
>
>>Learn that ALL curcuits are analog and that most digital
>>problems have to do with the ignored analog characteristics of the
>>digital simplification.  Learn about Karnaugh maps, glitches, races
>>etc.
>>Now, you know how to design circuits.  It's time to start looking at
>>software to simulate the circuit you've already designed to fine tune
>>it's parameters and take into consideration the simplifications you
>>used to design it in your head or with a pencil.
>
>
> I can't agree at all.




This is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, and
> that of probably every educator known to man. If this were true, there
> would be no lab work until 3rd year of uni. The best way to learn is to
> do little bits of theory at a time complemented by practise to reinforce
> that theory. A simulator is indeed *real* practise, excluding the few %
> issues like parasitics. Too many here are going, well because a
> simulator doesn't copy everything exactly from the real world, then it
> is sadly lacking for real world learning. This is very narrow minded.
> *Most* of what a simulator can do is very good model of the real world.
>
> Spending several years doing the "basics" before even getting started on
> trying out the theory is quite daft.

I do so enjoy reading your posts.  You seem to get a lot more out of
my posting than I wrote.  I never said anything about how long it should
take.  Never said you shouldn't do bench work along the way.
Point I was trying to make is to leave the simulator out of the picture
until you have a basic understanding.


One would simply forget what one
> first learned. To all intents and purposes, there is no practical
> difference between examining ohms law and I=cdv/dt on the bench or in a
> simulator. Your brain, eyes and ears are processing essentially, the
> same information. There is only this vague psychological issue that some
> have about it "not being the same". Essentially, it is.
>
>
>>Circuit simulation replaces the tedious VERIFICATION calculations that
>>we used to do by hand.
>
>
> Unfortunately, in a real design of 100s to 1000s of components, hand
> calculations are impossible. Even a one transistor circuit has no exact
> analytical solution.

Who said anything about exact analytical solutions?  I GUARANTEE you
that I can do calculations on a design with 100s of components.
I didn't say what calculations.

>
>
>>It does NOT replace the thought processes needed to design circuits.
>
>
> It can do. This is the reality of how it works in the real world,

Unfortunately, I think you're right and stated so further down in the
original posting.  The problem is that idiots with no understanding of
the fundamentals stuff numbers into a simulator that may or may not
represent their actual implementation.  They trust the result and have
no clue how to fix it if it doesn't work.

In skilled hands, a simulator with input that precisely models all the
circuit elements including parasitics, layout, power supply coupling
signal coupling, magnetic coupling, electrostatic coupling...the list is
long...can be a very powerful thing.

Anybody who starts their education with a simulator is doomed to failure.

not
> how we kid ourselves it is or should be. Yes, you need a good
> understanding independent of simulations, however, it is simple
> impossible to understand all of the nuances of a design without some
> constructive trial and error on a simulator. Yes, most don't like this
> idea, but it is the way it truly is. To illustrate. Consider the design
> of a nuclear bomb. These require amazingly powerful computers. Sure,
> they are run by *experts* , but even these 20 year experts cant
> understand the implications of all of the equations. Thery are simply
> too complicated. Or for example, colliding black holes. There is not a
> chance to develop a *feel* for happens *without* simulations.

Your argument is seriously flawed.  Somebody sat down and scratched
their ass for a decade and decided, "Hey, I'll bet if we could split
an atom, we could get a LOT of energy...and we'd have to manage the
reaction somehow...and Uranium would be a good thing to look at...
let's go do some math.
You seem to be suggesting that any idiot with a big computer could
invent the bomb.  NOT LIKELY!  A simulator is pretty useless without
input.  I'd go so far as to say that a simulator is pretty useless
with MOST unskilled input.

>
> Sure, I agree that without bench work there are many issues that one
> doesn't get a feel for in a simulator, but *likewise*, without a
> simulator there are *many more* things that you never get a feel for by
> bench work. As I said, I've been there 10000's of hours on both the
> bench and simulator. I can count countless things that I have missed on
> the bench that the simulator showed.
>
>
>>You have only to read the archives of this newsgroup to see countless
>>examples where people stuffed random numbers into a simulator and came
>>up with something that simulated, but was impractical, unrepeatable,
>>or just plain sad.
>
>
> But this is unintelligent trial and error. Intelligent trail and error
> is another matter entirely.  *All* design can be reduced to a Darwinian
> process, i.g. replication of existing circuits, varying such designs,
> and selecting the good ones. Whether this is done on paper, in ones head
> (a Darwinian process) or on a simulator don't much matter.

I think you're exactly right.  A designer without an understanding of
the fundamentals is gonna be just as bad whether he does simulation or
bench work.

>
>
> Kevin Aylward
> snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
>
>



--
Return address is VALID.
500MHz Tek DSOscilloscope TDS540 $2200
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?

>
>
>
>
> This is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, and
>> that of probably every educator known to man. If this were true,
>> there would be no lab work until 3rd year of uni. The best way to
>> learn is to do little bits of theory at a time complemented by
>> practise to reinforce that theory. A simulator is indeed *real*
>> practise, excluding the few % issues like parasitics. Too many here
>> are going, well because a simulator doesn't copy everything exactly
>> from the real world, then it is sadly lacking for real world
>> learning. This is very narrow minded. *Most* of what a simulator can
>> do is very good model of the real world. Spending several years doing
>> the "basics" before even getting
>> started on trying out the theory is quite daft.
>
> I do so enjoy reading your posts.  You seem to get a lot more out of
> my posting than I wrote.  I never said anything about how long it
> should take.  Never said you shouldn't do bench work along the way.
> Point I was trying to make is to leave the simulator out of the
> picture until you have a basic understanding.

But I don't agree that all of what you state above is "basic" from a
beginners point of view. e.g. Laplace, Fourier.

I certainly didn't wait to lean that stuff when I was 11-14 building up
my guitar effects pedals.

>
>
> One would simply forget what one
>> first learned. To all intents and purposes, there is no practical
>> difference between examining ohms law and I=cdv/dt on the bench or
>> in a simulator. Your brain, eyes and ears are processing
>> essentially, the same information. There is only this vague
>> psychological issue that some have about it "not being the same".
>> Essentially, it is.
>>> Circuit simulation replaces the tedious VERIFICATION calculations
>>> that we used to do by hand.
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, in a real design of 100s to 1000s of components, hand
>> calculations are impossible. Even a one transistor circuit has no
>> exact analytical solution.
>
> Who said anything about exact analytical solutions?  I GUARANTEE you
> that I can do calculations on a design with 100s of components.
> I didn't say what calculations.

I know. You can do a few back of the envelope calculations, but to
really *understand* what's going on, it cant be done, without
simulation. Many claim they can, but they are usually lying to
themselves. Its hard to admit ones brain is not capable of understanding
all the details without trial and error. I don't have that problem.

>
>>
>>
>>> It does NOT replace the thought processes needed to design circuits.
>>
>>
>> It can do. This is the reality of how it works in the real world,
>
> Unfortunately, I think you're right and stated so further down in the
> original posting.  The problem is that idiots with no understanding of
> the fundamentals stuff numbers into a simulator that may or may not
> represent their actual implementation.  They trust the result and have
> no clue how to fix it if it doesn't work.

I agree. You need to have good overall understanding of what going on,
but not necessarily all the details. The details are what the simulator
will bring out, *iff* you know how and where to look.

>
> In skilled hands, a simulator with input that precisely models all the
> circuit elements including parasitics, layout, power supply coupling
> signal coupling, magnetic coupling, electrostatic coupling...the list
> is long...can be a very powerful thing.
>
> Anybody who starts their education with a simulator is doomed to
> failure.

I still disagree on this. Its a complement. As I keep saying, there is
still much a beginner can learn with a simulator, the fact that it
doesn't cover *all* things is beside the point. Its like using a damp
towel to get the worst of the wetness off of you.

>
> not
>> how we kid ourselves it is or should be. Yes, you need a good
>> understanding independent of simulations, however, it is simple
>> impossible to understand all of the nuances of a design without some
>> constructive trial and error on a simulator. Yes, most don't like
>> this idea, but it is the way it truly is. To illustrate. Consider
>> the design of a nuclear bomb. These require amazingly powerful
>> computers. Sure, they are run by *experts* , but even these 20 year
>> experts cant understand the implications of all of the equations.
>> Thery are simply too complicated. Or for example, colliding black
>> holes. There is not a chance to develop a *feel* for happens
>> *without* simulations.
>
> Your argument is seriously flawed.

Oh?

> Somebody sat down and scratched
> their ass for a decade and decided, "Hey, I'll bet if we could split
> an atom, we could get a LOT of energy...and we'd have to manage the
> reaction somehow...and Uranium would be a good thing to look at...
> let's go do some math.
> You seem to be suggesting that any idiot with a big computer could
> invent the bomb.  NOT LIKELY!

There is no reasonable way that what I wrote could be interpreted in
that way.

.. A simulator is pretty useless without
> input.  I'd go so far as to say that a simulator is pretty useless
> with MOST unskilled input.

Not at all. A beginner will get lots of useful information from a
simulator. *Excluding* the obvious parasitics etc, the beginner can
learn *everything* *else* that a simulator does indeed do correctly. For
example, biasing up transistors, plotting waveforms etc..

Everyone here keeps ignoring the *numbers*. Sure, out of a possible 1000
things a simulator might do, maybe 10-20 of them will be erroneous when
tried on the bench. So what? *Most* of what can be done on the bench is
well covered, and that's what matters.


>
>>
>> Sure, I agree that without bench work there are many issues that one
>> doesn't get a feel for in a simulator, but *likewise*, without a
>> simulator there are *many more* things that you never get a feel for
>> by bench work. As I said, I've been there 10000's of hours on both
>> the bench and simulator. I can count countless things that I have
>> missed on the bench that the simulator showed.
>>
>>
>>> You have only to read the archives of this newsgroup to see
>>> countless examples where people stuffed random numbers into a
>>> simulator and came up with something that simulated, but was
>>> impractical, unrepeatable, or just plain sad.
>>
>>
>> But this is unintelligent trial and error. Intelligent trail and
>> error is another matter entirely.  *All* design can be reduced to a
>> Darwinian process, i.g. replication of existing circuits, varying
>> such designs, and selecting the good ones. Whether this is done on
>> paper, in ones head (a Darwinian process) or on a simulator don't
>> much matter.
>
> I think you're exactly right.  A designer without an understanding of
> the fundamentals is gonna be just as bad whether he does simulation or
> bench work.

That's correct. My point in this thread is that *most* of real world
electronics can be learnt with a simulator much easier and quicker. One
doesn't have to go through the trouble and expense of getting components
and instruments. Of course, the remaining few % of board level required
learning might take up 99% of ones time, but that's another story.


Kevin Aylward
snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.




Re: Software for a beginner to design and learn about circuits with?
Kevin,

> Digital is for those just to stupid to do analogue:-)

For flashing an LED, yes.
For building a modern radio receiver (as found in cell phones, set top
boxes, etc.)... no.

But I'm sure you knew that. :-)




Site Timeline